Palm CEO told Jobs his proposal "is not only wrong, it is likely illegal."

Former Apple CEO Steve Jobs threatened to hit Palm with patent litigation if the company did not stop poaching valuable employees, according to a newly unsealed court filing (hat tip to Reuters). The document surfaced as part of a lawsuit between former employees of companies like Apple, Google, and Intel over the companies' no-poaching agreements; US District Judge Lucy Koh denied parts of a request to keep some documents sealed, revealing Jobs' comments to Palm CEO Edward Colligan.

According to the document, which was filed late Tuesday, both Apple and Palm hired one another's employees during Colligan's tenure between 2003 and 2009. Colligan claims Jobs called him in August of 2007—roughly two months after the public launch of the iPhone—to propose "an agreement" wherein Palm and Apple would not hire employees away from each other. Colligan's statement notes that the agreement contained a pretty strong "or else" clause: "Mr. Jobs also suggested that if Palm did not agree to such an arrangement, Palm could face lawsuits alleging infringement of Apple's many patents."

Colligan sent an e-mail response to Jobs expressing his concern over the discussion. "Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal," Colligan wrote to Jobs on August 24, 2007.

Colligan went on to point out that Palm recruits employees based on talent, not because Palm wants to hurt other companies. "Threatening Palm with a patent lawsuit in response to a decision by one employee to leave Apple is just out of line. A lawsuit would not serve either of our interests and will not stop employees from migrating between our companies. […] We will both just end up paying a lot of lawyers a lot of money."

Jobs replied a few hours later with a much shorter message. "This is not satisfactory to Apple," Jobs wrote. "I'm sure you realize the asymmetry in the financial resources of our respective companies when you say: 'We will both just end up paying a lot of lawyers a lot of money.'"

Jobs ended his letter by suggesting Colligan "take a look at our patent portfolio before you make a final decision here."

As noted by MacRumors, Walter Isaacson's 2011 biography of Steve Jobs made reference to Jobs' anger at Palm over the hiring of Apple employees, but did not discuss Jobs' threat of patent litigation.

Other companies involved in the lawsuit—including Apple, Adobe, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar—had indeed begun to agree not to cold call each other's employees at that time. The US Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit against the companies and forced them to dissolve the agreements in 2010, but the current lawsuit is a civil complaint filed by five former employees.

Current Apple CEO Tim Cook has been ordered by Judge Koh to give a deposition about Apple's role in the alleged collusion, although Apple argues that only Jobs was involved in the discussion and that Cook had no knowledge of the agreements.

These "no poaching" agreements are very harmful to the staff of these companies. Most of the time, the only way to increase your salary is to change jobs every few years. If you stick with a company for longer than that, you're just hurting yourself financially.

Another proof that patent system is broken. It does nothing to support innovation, and is just another commercial weapon for CEOs and lawyers for extorsion, backroom-deals and profiteering.

More proof that Jobs was a spoiled child, very intelligent and rich, but a spoiled child nonetheless.

I read that, Jobs started his obsession with patenting everything from rectangles to swiping gestures because the young company was sued by Creative Technology in 2006 targeting its iPod MP3 player for $100 million. Steve Jobs then vowed to “patent it all,” according to a report from The New York Times.

And the FTC was spending their time investigating GOOGLE for anti-competitive practices?

I'm sure it will just be a matter of time before other things come to light that cause Apple to be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit as well. As they obtain more and more market share, it's inevitable due to the closed nature of their platform. (I like Apple products and own many, but it's pretty obvious they don't care to play nicely with others.) Look at what the DoJ did to Microsoft over a browser and a media player ...

Another proof that patent system is broken. It does nothing to support innovation, and is just another commercial weapon for CEOs and lawyers for extorsion, backroom-deals and profiteering.

More proof that Jobs was a spoiled child, very intelligent and rich, but a spoiled child nonetheless.

I read that, Jobs started his obsession with patenting everything from rectangles to swiping gestures because the young company was sued by Creative Technology in 2006 targeting its iPod MP3 player for $100 million. Steve Jobs then vowed to “patent it all,” according to a report from The New York Times.

Agreed. It also explains his litigation against MS in the 1990's. Oh..wait... Nice try though. On a serious note, behavior like this out of Steve goes back to the beginning of his career. The great thing about Jobs, is like Clinton and Michael Jordan; he could be a total ass and yet still make people believe he was a wonderful person. It is an amazing trait, most people who are asses are viewed as such by others.

Seems if someone is wanting to switch companies, they are either not happy with where they are, or they can get more money somewhere else. You can't blame a guy for wanting a better job or more money. If the person is that important or knows that much, then maybe you should make him/her happier so that they don't want to leave. Happier doesn't necessarily mean more money, either.

Seems if someone is wanting to switch companies, they are either not happy with where they are, or they can get more money somewhere else. You can't blame a guy for wanting a better job or more money. If the person is that important or knows that much, then maybe you should make him/her happier so that they don't want to leave. Happier doesn't necessarily mean more money, either.

Why keep your employees happy if you can just threaten the people who might hire them away? It costs money to increase employee morale, threats are free!

Steve Jobs will only become worse as more is revealed about him. Bill Gates was at least open and forthcoming about being a diehard capitalist cutthroat. Now he's wrapped up in being a humanitarian. That doesn't excuse his previous behavior, obviously, but he never tried to hide what he was and he's proving that he's no sociopath.

Yeah, "blame it on the dead guy" - I'm sure Jobs was a ringleader, from what I hear he was a pretty nasty piece of work, especially compared to a great guy like Woz, but nice try Tim Cook, I'm sure hundreds if not thousands of apple employees were all over this.

Are you seriously saying that thousands of apple employees were in on an illegal agreement to keep them from finding work elsewhere?

And the FTC was spending their time investigating GOOGLE for anti-competitive practices?

I'm sure it will just be a matter of time before other things come to light that cause Apple to be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit as well. As they obtain more and more market share, it's inevitable due to the closed nature of their platform. (I like Apple products and own many, but it's pretty obvious they don't care to play nicely with others.) Look at what the DoJ did to Microsoft over a browser and a media player ...

Apple is already anti-competition. They have been for a VERY long time. They like being the only option in their pond. They crush anyone who dares to try and offer their users an alternative with lawsuits. It's pretty sad that Apple will not allow Apple clones to be built and sold. It would force them to set more reasonable prices for their computers. This is one of the big reasons why Apple was never able to make any real gains on the desktop market. This is also why Windows has been the dominant desktop OS for decades now.

And the FTC was spending their time investigating GOOGLE for anti-competitive practices?

google was in on this too, their non poaching agreement was settled in another article.

Very true. But then Google didn't use their patents to bully other companies.

all companies do bad things, not sure why we are trying to use schoolyard tactics to make it as if someone is squeaky clean.

And you obviously haven't been following the patent litigation scene. Google only joined the patent litigation fray AFTER they and other Android device makers began getting hammered with lawsuits by Apple, MS, etc. At no time did I say Google was squeaky clean.

Seems if someone is wanting to switch companies, they are either not happy with where they are, or they can get more money somewhere else. You can't blame a guy for wanting a better job or more money. If the person is that important or knows that much, then maybe you should make him/her happier so that they don't want to leave. Happier doesn't necessarily mean more money, either.

Exactly. I have left a company for a job doing the same exact thing for lower paying elsewhere because while the pay was less the working environment was FAR better for my sanity.

And the FTC was spending their time investigating GOOGLE for anti-competitive practices?

I'm sure it will just be a matter of time before other things come to light that cause Apple to be hit with an anti-trust lawsuit as well. As they obtain more and more market share, it's inevitable due to the closed nature of their platform. (I like Apple products and own many, but it's pretty obvious they don't care to play nicely with others.) Look at what the DoJ did to Microsoft over a browser and a media player ...

Market share has less to do with anti-trust than most realize.... Unethical / illegal business practices that are used to hurt competition. You can have very little market share and still be hit if you enter into agreements that can have a detrimental effect on other businesses.

Steve Jobs will only become worse as more is revealed about him. Bill Gates was at least open and forthcoming about being a diehard capitalist cutthroat. Now he's wrapped up in being a humanitarian. That doesn't excuse his previous behavior, obviously, but he never tried to hide what he was and he's proving that he's no sociopath.

Sociopath? Absolutely not. There is no evidence that he was a psychopath (which is EXACTLY the same thing). Neither term is an insult, or something a normal person achieves by extreme douchery. He was an asshole, which means he was fully capable of understanding his behavior and how it would impact others. He could feel empathy, he just chose not to in this case, which is what assholes do. Which, honestly, makes them much worse people than psychopaths.

Actually, to those of us who've been following Apple news/rumors, this isn't entirely new; it made the rounds as a rumor at least three years ago. It is vaguely interesting to see actual documentation confirming the rumor... but I expect the investigation into the matter was concluded behind closed doors long ago.